Submission to the Executive of the NZHTA: Pip Hunter

Submission to the Executive of the New Zealand History Teachers Association Current standards-based alignments: Years 11-13 history

  

To contribute to consultation and debate

I offer this submission to contribute to discussion and debate about alignment of the Ministry of Education’s New Zealand Curriculum (2007) Levels 6-8 history Achievement Objectives and NZQA’s Levels 1-3 history Achievement Standards.

 

History education: Mediating University and curriculum history

In my work as a history and social studies teacher in a University School of Education, I work intensively with myriad ad hoc curriculum and assessment documentation that constitutes a history curriculum in Aotearoa New Zealand. In working with graduate secondary teacher education I mediate students’ history conceptions, skills, research interests and scholarship with the demands and challenges of school history pedagogy and assessment.

 

New Zealand Curriculum (2007) conception of history

Recent developments reflect the contested nature of curriculum. After initial involvement in the MoE Social Sciences Reference Group, I resigned in order to critique developments over 2006-7. It became apparent that the Levels 6-8 MoE history AOs were going to become the history curriculum by default in the absence of research or a position paper to support the development. The window of opportunity for an extensive history curriculum revision and researched development of coherent history curriculum documentation was not taken up by the MoE (Hunter & Farthing, 2004).  Why is this? It is nearly 20 years since the Syllabus (1989) shaped a conception of a history curriculum informed by the social, economic and political concerns of the 1980s. Whilst our current focus is on Years 11-13 history, the necessary development of historical skills, and historical consciousness (Seixas, 2004) through Levels 1-5 of the social sciences has been neglected. This is in contrast to the SSNZC (1997).

 

The 2007 NZC conception of history as indicated by the Achievement Objectives is limited. History standards–based assessment is now to be aligned to these AOs through the Government’s playing out of policy decisions around outputs. What an ad hoc way to develop a history curriculum for 21^st century students.

 

I understand that to date the MoE has not committed support or funding for research and development of much needed history curriculum guidance and professional learning documentation / resources for senior school programmes. How do we as history teachers feel about this? How about resourcing? It is my position that researched and coherent curriculum guidelines are needed to support the disciplinary and specialist nature of history as well as integrated history in the social sciences wider curriculum learning area. Guidance is urgently needed to support understandings of the reshaped nature of history and theories of “knowing” in the social sciences and humanities. Debate about the place and purpose of history in society and the curriculum needs to be opened up. Contemporary international research in the field of history education (primary to tertiary levels) does not appear to have been considered in developments to date. Theoretical underpinnings and ideological aspects of history along with historical thinking and historical processes need to be considered in the promotion and revitalisation of history education.  Any such guidance needs to be developed in a scholarly and convincing way that rejects neutral curriculum speak and “one size fits all” uncritical editing decisions. Likewise, support for school-based development of rich contexts for study, history pedagogies, working with technologies, and ways of accessing evidence is needed for 21^st century history teachers and students.

 

Achievement Objectives as history curriculum

The six NZC (2007) AOs mostly focus on events significant to New Zealanders. It is evident that the AOs embed familiar practice and contextual preferences. It is my view that history pedagogy often reflects a transmissive factual pursuit distanced from recent theories and reshaping of thinking (Wineberg, 2001, 2000: Seixas, 2000) and critical thinking in history (Segall, 1999).

 

Recent thinking in history education

Recent international thinking in history education reshapes history pedagogies as moving away from substantive content highlighting instead -

·       The historian’s questions and selection of evidence and values.

·       Individual perceptions and interpretation through many gazes

·       How history and what happened in the past is constructed (Fallace and Neem, 2005).

·       Moving on from an emphasis of assigning causes to events to focus on interpretations of agency in history (den Heyer, 2003)

·       Agency located at a personal level to enhance historical thinking and reflection

·         Agency as culturally embedded and socially expressed as images and stories people use to reiterate a past in the present

·         Historical thinking and development and interrogation of historical consciousness (Seixas, 2004)

·         The socially constructed nature of history (Levstik and Barton, 2001).

 

The focus on historical agency promotes thinking about identity / identities formation and social and cultural relationships in school history. Historical agency is not abstract and alienating, but is about engagement with people and their actions in the past. Historians Appleby, Hunt, & Jacob (1994), Culclasure (1999) and Wineburg (2001), have argued for the humanising nature of history, finding purpose and identity in history and connectedness to the present.

Full referencing details and further reading about trends in history education can be found in (Hunter and Farthing 2007; 2008).[1]

 

I believe the NZC focus on events significant to New Zealanders needs to be interrogated. How is “New Zealander” defined in the history AOs. The emphasis on events suggests a “one size fits all” national identity and citizenship approach. How will a diversity of voices / narratives / cultural values and beliefs / experiences be included, recounted, interpreted, or reconstructed in the NZC conceptualisation of New Zealander? I hope current MoE development of a guidelines document to sit alongside curriculum and assessment alignments may consider these issues.

 

History Achievement Standards alignment

The task of aligning history AS to AOs is difficult and unenviable in terms of policy compromise and responsibility. Consultation is critical, but often needs to be done quickly without the luxury of time and representative discussion around wider issues. I appreciate the opportunity to contribute to the consultation and welcome the NZHTA placement of the standards matrices on the website. I assume the NZHTA Executive endorses the NZC conception of history. Otherwise it would have been impossible to align the Achievement Standards’ titles matrices offered.

 

In recent critiques of the curriculum revision and reshaping of a social sciences learning area I have queried why the social sciences development chose to frame senior subject boundaries including history[2]. This is the only learning area to do so. In my view this is problematic in light of ways knowledge is socially constructed, interpreted and interrogated. Further, current social sciences theorising focuses on ideas and conceptual understandings and connecting and relating ideas. The history Levels 6-8 AOs sit oddly as a subject boundary in the social sciences learning area. This of course means that the history Achievement Standards will be limited to this boundary positioning.

 

I note the NZHTA matrix developers attempt to widen the conception of events by providing a definition that includes the statement “Historical scholarship now encourages students of history to look for points of connection and intersection, for similarities and differences and transcends the boundaries of nation states.” This is revealing, it reveals the discursive conception of the history AOs as political, and it attempts to problematise and widen this conception in the AS alignment. The bounded nature of the Levels 6-8 AOs rejected a conception of history that had resonance and interrelated knowledge’s with social, cultural, geographical and economic ideas. Hence the limitations will entrench a peculiar kind of history curriculum currently in place.

 

History teachers will no doubt have strong preferences for the internal or external assessment of history standards. I am not so concerned about this. More significant is the way a set of history titles signals the continuity of a conception of history curriculum and pedagogy evident in former Sch. C., and UEBS assessment. To me it feels like a leap backwards.  Is this a concession to those who resist the reshaped nature of history, and social / cultural / gendered and  /or reconstructions of histories? There appears little scope for pedagogy (including assessment) that might query invisibility of particular groups and individuals’ past experiences.  At this stage of development will there be any interrogation of the political conception (power & invisibility) indicated by curriculum AOs and suggested AS titles.

 

Some issues to consider in the alignment process include:

·         The significance of events emphasis of most standards at all levels

·         The “one size fits all term New Zealanders

·         The emphasis of historical ideas (thinking) on events

·         Seeming removal of assessment in relation to conceptual thinking in history and interrelationships of ideas (historical thinking and relationships)

·         Seeming removal of historical thinking around identity / identities

·         The titles reflect assessment of political conceptions of school history by retention of particular AS titles’ orientation

·         There is no assessment of historical consciousness; ways history is constructed; scholarly interpretation etc. until Level 3 and this is limited to debate

·         Perspectives related titles link only to significant events or significance of events

·         Perspective titles use the peculiar “in role”. This suggests a degree of discomfort with engaging with human agency, tangible evidence and imaginative elements of history. What is intended by “in role”?

·         Perspectives thinking is not extended to assessment at Level 3

·         Why is change considered in Level 3, but not Levels 1-2? What about continuity?

·         Historical terms and concepts are significantly missing in proposed new titles: E.g evidence, change & continuity; narrative; past, present, heritage, identity, identities, argument, beliefs and values, culture, social, historian, contested, issues, thinking, theory, personal, memory, distance, critique, history and power, invisibility, production, construction, imagination etc.

 

Finally, I urge those involved in the alignment process to acknowledge the diversity and experiences of history teachers and students – their voices, historical consciousness, and preferences. 

 

Pip Hunter (September 16, 2008)

  

Contact details

Philippa Hunter

Snr Lecturer in History, Social Sciences Education & Curriculum and Policy

Department of Policy, Cultural & Social Studies in Education

School of Education

University of Waikato

 

---

[1]Hunter, P. & Farthing, B.  (2008). Students think history and teachers learn. NZCER set Research Information for Teachers, (1) 15-24.

Hunter, P. & Farthing, B.  (2007). Connecting learners with their pasts as a way into history. NZCER set Research Information for Teachers, (1), 21-27.

2Hunter, P. (2007). Social sciences in The New Zealand Curriculum: A case of arrested development? Mediating challenges ahead, Teachers and Curriculum, (10), 43 -47.

 Hunter, P. (2006). Framing a social sciences learning area in the New Zealand Curriculum Draft for consultation, 2006, Teachers and Curriculum, (9), 11-19.

 

Cashmere High’s response

At Cashmere we preferred Matrix 1, mainly because it did not require exclusively primary sources at Level 1 for 1.3 (primary sources are generally harder to interpret than secondary), did not talk about ‘different interpretations’ in 2.3’ (since sometimes sources have a clear majority interpretation and it’s not necessary to come up with other, less justifiable, interpretations).  Also it did not have too many standards (compared with Matrix 2). 

Some issues were that:
 ‘of significance to New Zealanders’ is still too restrictive, even with the NZHTA’s broad interpretation of it, and should not be in so many standards (maybe only 1?).  This rules out far too many fascinating topics (e.g. Ming Dynasty China, India under the Maharajas, Medieval Europe).  To say that these have influenced New Zealand is a large and artificial stretch.  In addition, what is our definition of ‘New Zealanders’?  Is this not assuming a coherent culture that may not exist?  What is of significance to a Fijian migrant to New Zealand may be very different to someone who is Maori or who has come here from South Africa.  Also, looking at evenst New Zealand did take part in through the prism of ‘New Zealand’s involvement’ is bound to lead to selective use of evidence that exaggerates our contribution to world events and generates significant misunderstandings.  Finally, this resembles a Marxist or feminist history approach – a fashion that in a few decades will be derided as having an inherent bias leading to unjustifiable interpretations of past events.  This is not encouraging students to “transcend the boundaries of nation states” – it is just limiting them to ours.  History, as the study of human civilisation, is of significance to humanity.  It does not have to be somehow connected to one nation to be worthy of study.  NB – the ‘of significance to New Zealanders’ makes it difficult to retain many current topics, such as Tudor-Stuart England.  The new standards need to be structured so that smaller schools with tight budgetary constraints can still teach the old topics rather than having to buy entirely new sets of books at all three levels.
 too many standards require study of ‘an event’.  This rules out studies on people or areas, or even multiple events.  History should not be about single events in isolation from each other.  Also, field research (e.g. looking at causes of death in a cemetery, or investigating significant sites) is much more difficult since these rarely reflect a single event.  The ‘an event’ might be useful for the perspectives standard (1.4) but does not need to be elsewhere.
 Why are Level 1 students required to communicate ideas drawn from “a variety of sources” (1.2) when there is no requirement of this at Levels 2 and 3?  This should be across all standards.
 Why have the research and communication standards been telescoped into one standard at Level 3?  Surely this will lead to more students Not Achieving across the whole standard where before they might have passed one of the two?
 1.5, 2.5 and 3.5 should remain as essays, not ‘an extended piece of writing’.  It is important that we prepare students properly for tertiary study and teach the art of making a structured argument which is so important in life. 

It was proposed that Matrix 1 (with adjustments) be adopted, but entirely internally assessed.  This would allow schools to teach to their students and capture their interest more readily, improving recruitment and retention.  Teachers could spend longer on topics their students enjoyed, or needed more help with.  There would need to be a proviso of no re-sits to make it manageable. 
Cashmere High School History Department (5 staff)

Palmerston North Boy’s High response

We are being taken for a ride

·       I believe we must listen to George Bowen’s words carefully. Our subject is under serious attack from the Ministry who have no idea what history teaching is about.

·       Both he, Mr Hasler and others  have focussed on the essential issue which is that assessment is being put before curriculum. It is totally unacceptable and educationally unsound for assessment to drive curriculum. When the curriculum was under way at two successive NZHTA AGMs I challenged the Ministry officials involved to provide us with content. Their reply was to duck and weave, saying they could not prescribe. I am sure that the motive behind it was that they were not prepared to front and fund the difficult task of updating and reforming our curriculum.

·       I would venture to state there cannot be any other country in the world where there is not a core content specified for History. This is rightly regarded as essential for the creation of informed citizens who have some knowledge of their own country’s history and of the key events in world history that has created the world in which New Zealand exists. History also develops thinking and communication skills, perhaps more so than any other subject in the secondary curriculum. But skills are developed within a context and this context needs, in part, to be common and accepted by the various ‘stake-holders’, which includes teachers, students, university departments, parents, employers, the politicians. 

·       What has happened though, as George rightly points out, is that the MOE has hijacked the whole process, and the gallant attempts that the NZHTA exec have made were doomed from the start.

·       The point is we don’t have to blindly accept what the MOE has laid down. Earlier in the Achievement Standards debates and fights, we stood up to the ministry and put an embargo on further implementation – and it worked. This is a course of action that we need to consider. Alternatively, as someone else has mentioned, we could be more subtle and get the examiners to put contexts into the AS explanatory notes.

·       The other consequence that I can see happening is that more and more schools will look to CIE as a more realistic and credible form of assessment

·       I agree with many contributors who have voiced concern about the omnipresent phrase ‘of significance to NZers’. I agree with most people who think that it should be there, but only in one or two standards. We must study world contexts and events, because we do live in a wider world that New Zealand.

Dominic King

HOD History, Palmerson North Boys’ High School

 

AHTA meeting 10th September

Thank you to everyone who turned up to this meeting (about seventy teachers). Working in small groups and as a whole, the following issues emerged as the history teachers present debated and recorded their ideas. Sub-headings have been used to categorise common issues / concerns.
 
We hope that these comments can help to clarify your own thinking about the matrices and the issues which surround them. We strongly urge you to talk with your colleagues and email your individual or school history department comments to NZHTA so that they can be added to the online NZHTA blog. Please try to do this in the next ten days.  

AHTA Co-chairs
Martyn Davison
Stephanie Ashton.
 
Internal Versus External Assessment:

Assessment conditions vary from school to school and region to region (policies on re-sits, resubmissions, benchmarks, standards of marking). There are issues of transparency and credibility if everything is internally assessed.  

• Providing a range of assessment opportunities suits different learning styles / genders.
• More internal assessment means workload issues for teachers and students. The counter argument is that teachers already prepare and mark formative assessment – one of these assessments would be simply used summatively.
• Felt that sending internally set exams to an external marking panel would be messy and time consuming (as suggested in matrix two).
• Largely opposed to either fully internal assessment or a heavy emphasis placed on internal assessment (dislike of Matrix 4). Prefer a balance i.e. one third internal and two thirds external. Felt Level 3 essays should be external. 

Contextualise / Decontextualise

• Assessment specifications could be used to signal the context(s) for examinations. This would help to contextualise external assessment.
• Large degree of opposition to decontextualised assessment. Felt that students find decontextualised questions difficult. 

Extended Piece of Writing

• Largely preferred ‘essay’. Feeling that in an essay a historical argument can be set out and developed. The skill of communicating historical ideas in an essay is important. In other words, history is an academic subject.
• What is the purpose of this change? Is there a problem with ‘essays’? University and workplace value the skill of well structured writing.
  

Significance to New Zealanders

• There is a lot of uncertainty around the definition of ‘significance to New Zealanders’. Will this be broadly interpreted? Will students be expected to explain why an event is of significance to New Zealanders?  What has happened to the idea of ‘identity’?
• Not sure how this fits with a global context. Students enjoy the global context – what sort of balance between New Zealand and global history would be expected? Seems artificial and too narrow / isolated.  
• Not necessarily assessed or one achievement standard at each level could be used to assess this concept.

Further Important Issues

• The big question of whether we see the matrices as offering reasonable choices or whether they should all be rejected. The matrices focus the debate on matters of assessment whereas there is a view that a much wider debate should be taking place about the purpose of history education and curriculum matters. 
• Feeling that there is a rush to look at ‘assessment’ when the ‘tier two’ work on the history curriculum is incomplete. This appears to be placing assessment ahead of the curriculum which is completely UNACCEPTABLE. This makes the achievement standards the de facto history curriculum. 
• ‘Events’ is far too narrow. Would also like to see individuals and groups included. The notion of an ‘event’ is too narrow. 
• There needs to be consultation with the wider community of students and parents to see what they think about history education.  
• Concern about a 2010 start … should be staggered. Concern about the time and resources needed. What training will be provided? 
• Historical sources should not only include ‘primary sources’.  
• Historiography – is it too difficult for Year 13 students? 
• Are we moving towards Social Studies?
• Question mark about the number of standards (why so many?)

MAGS Response

I was impressed at the recent AHTA meeting by the amount of thought and effort which has been expended by AHTA and NZHTA in their submissions with regards to the direction (and future) of the school subject called History.

I am saddened by the direction History is being taken. It seems to me that decisions are being imposed without adequate imput from history teachers and their students and parents. Phrases like ‘Non negotiable’ have no part of a consultation process.

I would like the new curriculum to be contextualised, with the opportunity for students to learn from global historical experiences – including those of significance to New Zealanders. I choose now to offer New Zealand history to my students…I feel that I am professional and experienced enough to offer a balanced course of study. I don’t wish to ‘tweak’ topics. Resourcing would be a major stumbling block of a decontextualised course.

Many of my students are ‘new’ New Zealanders. Our multi-cultural society demands that they be aware of the events, people and historical experiences which have helped create the New Zealand of today. Similarly, native-born New Zealanders need to have an appreciation of the historical background, events and issues which are part of the cultural baggage of the recent migrants to our country.

I favour a mix of internal and external assessment, with a leaning towards external – for all the reasons others have noted… A fair, valid and equitable check as well as balancing the workload of students and teachers.

There would be history essays as a central focus of such a mix. Such skills (in writing effective history essays) are a major selling point for History and prepares the student for the challenges of tertiary education.

Thank you for the opportunity to offer my thoughts… I don’t favour any of the four matrices.

Paul Gardner
HOD Mt Albert Grammar School

EGGS Response

Caged and Cuckolded

I have felt a certain reluctance to engage in this debate because of the restrictions already in place that make all of the matrices unpalatable for me [and for the 5 other History teachers I work with] and have led to a sense of futility and frustration. From what I hear, these sentiments are being echoed in many History departments around town.

It seems that the feedback we really want to give – support for contextualised externally examined standards balanced by ‘free range’ internally assessed standards – will be dismissed as unacceptable and timid. The ‘Battery Hen’ analogy fits our current mood nicely. We feel caged in by poorly written achievement objectives and Ministry/NZQA directives. I am not going to peck away at the few kernels, in the form of the matrices, that are being presented to us [of course at the same time I recognise that they are the product of much discussion and effort by the Dunedin executive on our behalf] when what I want to do is be able to challenge the whole philosophy:

 

·         No Prescription

This is at the heart of the problem.

o        The new curriculum is assuming biblical significance in that nothing is to be either added or taken away from it. In History the problem is exacerbated by the brevity of the achievement objectives, particularly when compared to other subjects/learning areas. The result is that we basically have to decide between the lesser of two evils – decontextualised externals or all internals.

o        Introducing a decontextualised History programme in my classroom would be a joke, which is how I view the current external standards assessed in the decontextualised format. 1.3 and 2.3 as they stand have questionable educational worth and are a lottery. 2.5 and 2.6 essays produce memorised essays and unnecessarily contorted questions in an effort to introduce variation from one year to the next. The thought of more external assessments being infected with the generic bug leaves me cold.

o        I know that matrix 2 offers a hybrid solution but this seems to be fraught with issues of comparability of conditions and marker knowledge being sufficient to deal with any context a student might care to present. Poor marker knowledge is already evident in the grading of the current, generic level two essays where topics are still prescribed. What an earth would happen if all prescription disappears too?

o        If the MOE/NZQA cannot bring themselves to add some sort of prescription to the explanatory notes of the standards, why can’t the examiners add this to the assessment specifications.

 

·         “Extended Piece of Writing”

I suppose that I should have seen this one coming. Virtually every other aspect of what makes History distinct as a subject is being challenged. Why should the historical essay be exempt from slaughter? I cannot for the life of me see the sense in this piece of nonsense. Why would we remove a key reason for choosing History from our programme? Many of the students I teach see the sense in developing this skill in preparation for university. If there is a concern that the essay criteria leads to pedantic, nit picky marking on issues of format rather than historical understanding then spell out the essay expectations at each level more clearly in the explanatory notes and to marking panels, or if we must, lower the criteria expectations that we currently have. Don’t ditch the entire concept for goodness sake!

 

·         Internal Component

o        Both my students and I appreciate the variety that the current balance of internals/externals offers. I would not want that changed too radically [other than possibly making perspectives at level 1 and 2 internal].

o        Teacher workload must surely increase with this devolution of all assessment responsibility. We already have endless dept moderation meetings over existing internals. Will the extra responsibility and workload be recognised and rewarded? There will also be real pressure on the impartiality of teachers, on the professional decision-making we do in terms of which piece of work can be reassessment or conferenced and which can not, particularly at level three.

o        Will the subject be devalued in the eyes of students, parents, universities if there is too much of an internal component and what effects will that have on student numbers? Are other parallel subjects such as Classics, English and Art History heading towards a significant increase in their internal component? Perhaps history teachers should be on a higher pay scale than other teachers if they are carrying all responsibility for assessment a la matrix 4.

 

The restrictions placed on the realignment team have led to a Clayton’s choice – no choice. You can pretend that there are options but it is still a pig with lipstick.

 

History practitioners are being handed a fait accompli. Instead of laying our own egg, we get the job of sitting on an MOE/NZQA creation, taking complete responsibility for its well being and success. Talk about being cuckolded.

 Mary Welsh
Epsom Girls Grammar School

 

Guy Bromley – EGGS

 I am in agreement with the comments and concerns of Mr Bowen, Mr Hasler and Mrs Welsh.

 

I do not favour any of the matrix options.

 

With regard to the retention of students choosing history, I have two points to make:

 

Firstly, I believe that it is most important for us to consider the requirements of other subjects in terms of the internal v external balance and the number of credits and standards offered. We do not want to undermine our chances of students choosing history because of any perceived assessment concerns in comparison to what other subjects are offering. A survey of students may be necessary to consider their preferences on these issues.   

 

And secondly, I believe it is important to continue to require a formal essay from students rather than an extended piece of writing. The academic rigour of history essays helps to separate us from other subjects such as classics and art history. In my experience, this encourages students to choose history rather than turns them away because of pedantic demands.

 

Guy Bromley

History Department

Epsom Girls, Auckland

Howick College

The large amount of internal assessment is a concern as there can be inconsistencies among schools as to conditions for assessments, resits etc. An increase in internal assessment is also going to increase teacher workload and student workload. Have students and parents been consulted?

 

I am concerned about the decontextualised assessments. Students tend to find generic questions difficult, and this will also lead to difficulties with marking a huge range of topics.

 

I do not think that the essay should be changed to an extended piece of writing. Essay writing is an important skill that we develop in history students and is a skill that students will need at University level.

 

While I believe that studying topics of significance to New Zealanders is important, I do not think that every standard needs to have reference to significance to New Zealanders. Students enjoy studying global history and should be an aspect of their history course. I think that a focus on the significance to New Zealanders will at times lead to tenuous links being made, which will not be meaningful or relevant to students.

 

Katherine Leman

Howick College

 

Sailing Blind

        I  am disappointed and worried about these matrices because they take out all guidance about what we teach , apart from vague references to NZ,  and undermine the  level playing field of external assessment. It is not an update but a revolution and parents and politicians should be part of such a change if it survives. In a flood of internal assessment there are no safe beacons or lifeboats.

 1. There were 4 issues teachers needed the NZHTA, NZQA and MOE to look at

• The decontextualising issue – most seemed to like it for internal assessment but know it doesn’t suit external assessment
• The generic question issue at level 2 which has been awkward for many
• The inclusion of NZ history
• The need to update some of our popular contextual topics.

 2. The MOE seems to have overridden NZQA and NZHTA by demanding all levels be decontextualised, which means they can only be externally assessed by generic questions. So two big issues have been taken off the consultation table before the start and the last made irrelevant. It is a highjack.

 3. Consequently NZHTA has been forced to give us  4 matrices representing only what the MOE Reps want – we don’t get offered any other options. Nobody I have contacted in Auckland, Hamilton, Timaru and Christchurch is happy. We are supposed to choose one of these turkeys and then MOE will be able to say History teachers chose the new curriculum. It is dangerous to select  any option because this will be putting you in the process of endorsing the MOE., as they will be well aware.

 

4.   Particular features which scare me.;

 Introducing this beast simultaneously at all levels in one year – this is the ridiculous becoming the impossible – Mallard found that out last time

• Decontextualising externals
• Generic questions  at all levels

·        “events” have become the focus for studies, not individuals or groups of people

·        “essays” have disappeared  from all levels, being replaced by passages of “extended writing”.

·        only topics “of significance to New Zealanders” are  specified in a few places, and these need not be in or about NZ, so their chances of  bringing in popular NZ teaching are very slim, especially if the matrices deter  dealing with interesting personalities.

·        The differences between the matrices is mainly the degree of internal assessment – all seem to require more than we have now. One proposal is entirely internally assessed. There is no mention of compensatory time for this and no mention of the horrific moderating task it would involve. The present secret moderation is not suitable for a profession.

·        The matrices present a danger of losing the level playing field that the present externally assessed  system provides all schools. It could expose students to local prejudice.

 

5. Some points that might tilt the Titanic away from the icebergs

 

·        Make 1.3, 2.3, 3.3 , 1.4, 2.4. 3.4 1.5, 2.5, 3.5   externally assessed  but enable the examiner to name the contexts of the questions each year – this will help teachers plan their year. We need contexts for credible external assessment. The  examiner would need guidelines set by NZQA  not MOE.

·        Maintain the  external  examinations at the present length in order to maintain our  credibility with the parents.

·        Merging 3.1 and 3.2 makes sense – surely we can judge the quality of the research from the finished product at this level

·        Restore a 1.6 NZ option, make it externally assessed, and take it through to levels  2  and 3 , focusing on the impact of a New Zealander. This will put some flesh among the events and is more likely to get NZ taught for its own worth.

·        Return to “essays” – extended pieces of writing  invite dishonesty among students and teachers.

·        Cut out all generic questions – if topics are nominated by an examiner then there is no need for them

·        Allow decontextualised material for internal assessment

·        Get a committee of AHTA and NZQA to draw up exam topic contexts.which will be attached to the curriculum

 

 

George Bowen

 

 

 

 

 

 

Rangitoto College’s Response

Our department is happy with changes shown in Option 1 and 2.  We are enthusiastic that there are no prescribed topics, as we will have a greater selection of topics to choose.  While there were some teachers concerned with generic questions for the essays (or extended writing) across all three levels, we believe it is skill that can be taught across all levels.  Option 2, with the essay administered internally and marked externally, is an acceptable compromise. We are happy that some assessments, especially the internals, have to show some connection with New Zealand.  We have based our 1.1 and 1.2 on New Zealand topics for the last three years, and we have found it a successful way for students to study their own history. 

 There are certainly some things that need to be sorted out.  Workload will increase for teachers, and some form of compensation will have to be worked out.  If there is no prescribed topic for Level 3, what will students write on for Scholarship?  Also, a greater definition of “significance to New Zealanders” is needed.

 Otherwise, the History Department at Rangitoto College is looking forward to the changes in 2010. 

 Jim Hay-Mackenzie
Head of History
Rangitoto College